The court emphasized the efficacy of the remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, specifically the Debts Recovery Tribunal route.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner availed a business loan of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) from the 2^nd respondent Bank in the year 2022. For availing the loan, the petitioner mortgaged his residential property having an extent of 21.49 Cents with his residential house situated in Re-Survey No.160/1/85pt in Arakkuparambu Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District, as security for the above loan transaction. The tenure of the said loan was 15 years. Since there was default in repayment, the loan was declared as Non-Performing Asset on 10.07.2025 and the respondent bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act . In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. On 30.01.2026, this Court granted an interim order deferring the coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of six weeks on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) within a period of one month. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, it is submitted that the said direction has not been complied with.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and taking note of the fact of non-compliance with the interim order as well as the efficacious remedy available as held in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , it is for the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, against the proceedings initiated by the Bank.

Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it stands dismissed.

Sd/-